Signal-to-noise ratios in e-mail signatures

Posted on May 13, 2009 in IT, Life | 0 comments

Eight percent. How’s that for a ratio of useful content versus other text in an e-mail? Many e-mails I receive have extremely involved signature blocks (the content automatically appended to each message). When these same messages only contain brief statements or questions, the “signal-to-noise” ratio becomes very low. The eight percent figure I cited is from a message today containing a total of 909 characters, only 76 of which weren’t part of that signature block. Not all are that extreme (though some are probably worse).

What’s the big deal? There is none, really. It’s more of an observation of e-mail etiquette. Certainly, signatures are useful (I use (a tiny) one myself), especially when you receive a forward or are added into a conversation after the fact: they provide contact info otherwise not available. But some people find it necessary to include a ridiculous amount of info: name (plus their full name?!); job title(s); address; phone, cell, fax, alternate fax; office hours; links to personal websites or blog; a funny or pithy quote, etc. These bits are often wrapped in extravagant lines and columns of asterisks, equal signs, or underscores to “format” everything. And that’s not all… don’t forget the legalese about confidentiality and intended recipients. My favorite addition, though, are the admonitions to “consider the environment” before printing the received e-mail.

If your signature contains some of this stuff… consider removing it. Why? Most e-mails beget replies, which are in turn replied to, and all the signature files snowball around small nuggets of actual conversation until you end up with some 400kb monster message. It’s a pain to review such messages for those useful nuggets to see what happened and when. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Probably, but as someone who routinely must dig through such messages, it’s worth stating. It’d sure save me (and many others) some time and exasperation.

Not to mention the paper that’d be saved if someone had to <gasp!> print that conversation (after carefully weighing the environmental impact, of course).

Related: If you liked this, check out:

1. More than one way to skin an e-mail account Today, I logged into my Gmail account. “That’s strange,” I...
2. Why no flags, OWA? First off: OWA is Outlook Web Access, the web-based version...
3. A small blow in the war against spam Spam--it's not just for breakfast anymore. Raise your hand if...
4. When in doubt, restart One of the many duties I have as an IT...
5. Why must people thwart energy savers? … don’t mix. I’ve noticed (as I’m sure you have,...